ATkins Diet

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

futureworlds - 18 Aug 2004 18:17 GMT

> Paying the price for other people is part of life. If your child's
> food can kill another child, via breath, it is only reasonable to
> restrict that food so that another child does not die.

So let me get this straight. This kid is going to go through
life in a peanut butter free zone? Nobody in high school,
college or work is going to be allowed to eat peanut butter near
him? No one on a bus or a plane is going to be allowed to eat
peanut butter? If he joins the service, the mess hall is going
to stop serving peanut butter? And lord help us if the Iraqis
start throwing gobs of pb at the troops.

You don't see this as **totally** unreasonable? We're going to
have to stop US production of peanut products for a small
minority of allergic people?

Quite candidly, I think this is nuts.

Reply to this Message

Ignoramus22762 - 18 Aug 2004 18:24 GMT

>> Paying the price for other people is part of life. If your child's
>> food can kill another child, via breath, it is only reasonable to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> to stop serving peanut butter? And lord help us if the Iraqis
> start throwing gobs of pb at the troops.

As far as I know (as our allergist told us), peanut allergy becomes
less severe with age. My son is not allergic to peanuts, but he never
eats them just in case, at the allergist's suggestion, because my son
is allergic to other nuts.

As for joining the service, I doubt that they would take someone with
such allergy. Bad example.

i

> You don't see this as **totally** unreasonable? We're going to
> have to stop US production of peanut products for a small
> minority of allergic people?
>
> Quite candidly, I think this is nuts.

Reply to this Message

Rob - 18 Aug 2004 18:44 GMT

> In article <13f5b920db03008a2dcfbb8aca23c220@mail.futureworlds.it>,

futureworlds wrote:

>>>Paying the price for other people is part of life. If your child's
>>>food can kill another child, via breath, it is only reasonable to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>to stop serving peanut butter? And lord help us if the Iraqis
>>start throwing gobs of pb at the troops.

>>You don't see this as **totally** unreasonable? We're going to
>>have to stop US production of peanut products for a small
>>minority of allergic people?
>>
>>Quite candidly, I think this is nuts.

It takes a certain type of person to live with the killing of another
human being in their thoughts. I’m not sure I’m that type of person.

Reply to this Message

rrrrrrr@vvvvvvvvv.com - 19 Aug 2004 08:14 GMT

>As far as I know (as our allergist told us), peanut allergy becomes
>less severe with age. My son is not allergic to peanuts, but he never
>eats them just in case, at the allergist's suggestion, because my son
>is allergic to other nuts.

Is he allergic to his own nuts too? <LOL

Reply to this Message

Patricia Heil - 18 Aug 2004 21:27 GMT

> > Paying the price for other people is part of life. If your child's
> > food can kill another child, via breath, it is only reasonable to
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Quite candidly, I think this is nuts.

Obviously an ignoramus who has no friends with kids and no kids of his own
and can't imagine that anybody would be upset if their kid died from
anaphylactic shock.

Reply to this Message

Dally - 18 Aug 2004 22:54 GMT

>>Paying the price for other people is part of life. If your child's
>>food can kill another child, via breath, it is only reasonable to
>>restrict that food so that another child does not die.
>
> So let me get this straight. This kid is going to go through
> life in a peanut butter free zone?

No. But it helps when he's small and can't advocate for himself. Have
you heard stories about how little kids get peanutbutter foisted upon
them by well-meaning adults who are either lying to the kid (thinking
he's a picky eater) or just convince the kid that it's safe (when it's
not?) A little kid is too easily swayed to try peanutbutter.

A little kid is also seldom left in a situation without custodial
supervision. The places that GIVE the custodial supervision, i.e., the
schools, have an ethical duty to keep the area as safe as possible.

> Nobody in high school,
> college or work is going to be allowed to eat peanut butter near
> him? No one on a bus or a plane is going to be allowed to eat
> peanut butter? If he joins the service, the mess hall is going
> to stop serving peanut butter? And lord help us if the Iraqis
> start throwing gobs of pb at the troops.

So he'll die. Is your philosophy that "he's going to die sometime so it
might as well be in elementary school so that my kid can have a pb&j in
her brownbag"? Or, "a.sholes exist so I may as well be one?"

> You don't see this as **totally** unreasonable? We're going to
> have to stop US production of peanut products for a small
> minority of allergic people?
>
> Quite candidly, I think this is nuts.

Perspective is a useful tool. Try it sometime.

Dally

Reply to this Message

JMA - 19 Aug 2004 03:13 GMT

>>>Paying the price for other people is part of life. If your child's
>>>food can kill another child, via breath, it is only reasonable to
>>>restrict that food so that another child does not die.
>>
>> So let me get this straight. This kid is going to go through life in a
>> peanut butter free zone?

As this kid gets older and able to choose his environment he may possibly
have to do that though there are times that these allergies get less severe
OR as he gets older he can carry an epipen. Elementary school age children
are not responsible enough to self-administer a dose of epinephrine and it's
not feasible 1. to have every staff member at a school carry one around
"just in case" (because by the time you haul the kid to the nurses office to
get it, you might be too late) or 2. administer it daily because upstanding
citizens like you think it's too inconvenient to pack a different lunch for
your children.

> A little kid is also seldom left in a situation without custodial
> supervision. The places that GIVE the custodial supervision, i.e., the
> schools, have an ethical duty to keep the area as safe as possible.

Not only ethical, which of course I believe has higher standing, but as I
explained earlier there is also some legal responsibility too, but since
it's not his kid who cares, right?

>> Nobody in high school, college or work is going to be allowed to eat
>> peanut butter near him? No one on a bus or a plane is going to be
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> might as well be in elementary school so that my kid can have a pb&j in
> her brownbag"? Or, "a.sholes exist so I may as well be one?"

I vote for option two.

>> You don't see this as **totally** unreasonable? We're going to have to
>> stop US production of peanut products for a small minority of allergic
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Dally

Jenn

Reply to this Message